Shopping Cart -

Your cart is currently empty.
Upgrade to today
for only an extra Cxx.xx

You get:

plus This issue of xxxxxxxxxxx.
plus Instant access to the latest issue of 410+ of our top selling titles.
plus Unlimited access to 33000+ back issues
plus No contract or commitment. If you decide that PocketmagsPlus is not for you, you can cancel your monthly subscription online at any time. Auto-renews at $16.99 per month, unless cancelled.
Upgrade for $1.39
Then just $16.99 / month. Cancel anytime.
Learn more
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
Pocketmags Digital Magazines
   You are currently viewing the Canada version of the site.
Would you like to switch to your local site?
Read anywhere Read anywhere
Ways to pay Pocketmags Payment Types
Trusted site
At Pocketmags you get
Secure Billing
Great Offers
Web & App Reader
Gifting Options
Loyalty Points


ECONOMICS STANDS DEEPLY COMMITTED to quantification, especially in its most policy-facing branches. Indeed, a particular approach to quantification for policy analysis is what many applied economists mean by economics. This dogma of quantification creates perils for policy that are, in my view, as significant as the market fundamentalism the EfIP authors highlight. As economists rethink the relationship between their discipline and public policy, they would be well served grappling with these issues.

In a textbook vision of policy analysis, quantification is simply a tool; it measures and scores policy alternatives rather than shaping the alternatives themselves. We are invited to think of quantification as in service of policy aims that are defined elsewhere and by others. But this view, while popular, is misleading. We cannot divide the world into a neat dualism of aims and tools. How and what we quantify shapes and determines the aims of public policy, just as those aims shape and determine what we quantify.

Purchase options below
Find the complete article and many more in this issue of Boston Review - Economics After Neoliberalism (Summer 2019)
If you own the issue, Login to read the full article now.
Single Digital Issue
Economics After Neoliberalism (Summer 2019)
This issue and other back issues are not included in a new Boston Review subscription. Subscriptions include the latest regular issue and new issues released during your subscription.
Annual Digital Subscription
Only $ 8.75 per issue

View Issues

About Boston Review

Economics After Neoliberalism offers a powerful case for a new brand of economics—one focused on power and inequality and aimed at a more inclusive society. Three prominent economists—Suresh Naidu, Dani Rodrik, and Gabriel Zucman—lead off with a vision “for economic policy that stands as a genuine alternative to market fundamentalism.” Expanding on “the state of creative ferment” they describe, Boston Review has commissioned responses to their essay from economists, philosophers, political scientists, and policymakers across the political spectrum as well as new essays that challenge the current shape of markets and suggest more democratic alternatives. Lenore Palladino explores the misguided logic of shareholder primacy and points to more equitable approaches to corporate governance—such as employee ownership funds. Amy Kapczynski examines how the courts have developed a new, anti-democratic First Amendment that protects corporate speech at the expense of regulation designed to protect public health and safety. And Robert Manduca explores the importance of public discussion about economics by revisiting Chester Bowles's remarkable book, Tomorrow Without Fear, which explained Keynesian ideas to the public after World War II.

Other Articles in this Issue

Boston Review
This publication was made possible by a generous grant from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
NEAR THE END of Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Milton
We live in an age of astonishing inequality. Income
FOR NON-ECONOMISTS on the left, “Economics After Neoliberalism”
A DEFINING FEATURE of Naidu, Rodrik, and Zucman’s essay
SINCE COMPLAINTS about the domination of market fundamentalism
LIKE NAIDU, RODRIK, AND ZUCMAN, I celebrate the advantages
AFTER NEARLY FOUR YEARS of working as chief economic
I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS on Dani Rodrik’s scheme to combat
(Eric Beinhocker, W. Brian Arthur, Robert Axtell, Jenna Bednar, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, David Colander, Molly Crockett, J. Doyne Farmer, Ricardo Hausmann, Cars Hommes, Alan Kirman, Scott Page, and David Sloan Wilson)
“ECONOMICS AFTER NEOLIBERALISM” describes an economics
NAIDU, RODRIK, AND ZUCMAN are on the cutting edge of
THE RESPONSES IN THIS FORUM are too insightful to engage
HOW DO WE TALK about economics? Robert Manduca’s essay
IN 1962 MILTON FRIEDMAN- the economist who, more than
WE NEED METAPHORS to make sense of reality. But we
THE FIRST AMENDMENT has long been celebrated as the
Samuel Bowles is Arthur Spiegel Research Professor